The Lane plotline was bizarre. I know that in 1966 8 grand was a fair amount of money, but he could (and should easily) have gone to his partners, told them the truth and got an advance on his draw. Roger has enough free cash to buy his ex a new apartment, and Don plonked down $6K for an E-type (the bastard!), as well as covering Pete's capital call of $50K.

I guess that Don hard-driving the Jag after leaving Joan at the bar was some kind of release.

So did Don take the Jag back or keep it? And it cost $5600? I know nothing about cars, but I'm assuming this is a high end foreign import? I'm trying to remember what I paid for my first car in the early 70's, but I have no idea.

He wrote a check, didn't he? That doesn't necessarily mean he was flush with cash. (Presumably he got the check back from the salesman, and tore it up, when he brought the car back.)

stellie93 said:

So did Don take the Jag back or keep it? And it cost $5600? I know nothing about cars, but I'm assuming this is a high end foreign import? I'm trying to remember what I paid for my first car in the early 70's, but I have no idea.

Click to expand...

He took it back, as he told Megan later.

Yes, a Jaguar was a "high-end foreign import." $5,600 in 1966 is, due to inflation, about $37,000 today -- although cars have really gone up in price more than inflation for various reasons. The top-of-the-line Jaguar in 2012 has a retail price starting at $83,000.

By comparison, if Don had gone to a Chevrolet dealer for a family sedan, the 1967 Chevy Bel Air 4-door retailed for $2,689.

So did Lane have to pay both US income tax AND give her majesty her share, too? If so, no wonder Lane put off paying for his kid's school tuition. Everybody's getting money except the person who earned it! US income taxes at Lane's income level were insane back then.

Can Joan and hubby have so much in marital assets that a huge divorce settlement fight should be a concern? She hardly has a super high-paying job, and he is just a military guy, after all.

Click to expand...

I've known enough people getting divorces to know that the adage "When the stakes are small, tempers run hot" is often true. And often in divorce disagreements, it's less about getting stuff than inflicting damage.

I don't think I've ever heard someone be so specific when giving a location using clock terminology: "...the guy at 7:30..."

Click to expand...

The whole "7:30" thing was odd, because if they were really using clock terminology, they'd have had to look over their left shoulders to see the guy at 7:30, but clearly he was just across the bar from them, and not behind them. So I'm not sure what "7:30" was referring to.

Can Joan and hubby have so much in marital assets that a huge divorce settlement fight should be a concern? She hardly has a super high-paying job, and he is just a military guy, after all.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's about assets. I think it's about the indignity of Greg being the one to request the divorce, when in fact it was Joan that kicked him out. She felt like she had the right to file against him, but didn't think he had any right to file against her.

The whole "7:30" thing was odd, because if they were really using clock terminology, they'd have had to look over their left shoulders to see the guy at 7:30, but clearly he was just across the bar from them, and not behind them. So I'm not sure what "7:30" was referring to.

Click to expand...

Umm unless I'm remembering wrong, he was where I'd consider the 7 o'clock position from them at the bar.